The Western encyclopedia model is not serving the evolving needs of people who want to learn.

Knowledge sharing has become highly social across the globe.

Much of the world's knowledge is yet to be documented on our sites and it requires new ways to integrate and verify sources.

The discovery and sharing of trusted information have historically continued to evolve.

Trends in misinformation are increasing and may challenge the ability for Wikimedians to find trustworthy sources of knowledge.

Mobile will continue to grow. Products will evolve and use new technologies such as artificial intelligence, augmented reality, and virtual reality. These will change how we create, present, and distribute knowledge.

As the world population undergoes major shifts, the Wikimedia movement has an opportunity to help improve the knowledge available in more places and to more people.

Readers in seven of our most active countries have little understanding of how Wikipedia works, is structured, is funded, and how content is created.

Let's not forget that young people will grow up and hopefully develop better insights as to what is a reliable source. If they try to gather reliable information through unreliable sources, that does not mean that Wikipedia has to adapt to it. Primarily it is a problem of educational institutions. They clearly don't know sufficiently how to explain what is a reliable source, or don't have the time for these things. Wikipedia could approach governments to inform them about the results of the research. Information and knowledge is increasingly available for groups of people who did not have this opportunity in the past. That is, of course, great for a mind hungry for knowledge. This does also mean that this way how to present knowledge reaches people who don't know the 'Western model of an encyclopedia' may not know how to interpret it, when it comes to the reasoning behind this model. People don't like what they don't know. The reason that the 'western model of an encyclopedia' does not appeal to all cultures in the world to the same extent is of course the fact that the encyclopedia is a western invention. It does not mean that this model fails. I wonder if the objections to the "Western model of an encyclopedia" do not consist of prejudice to Western findings as such. See for this the political condition of the world at this time. Has that been investigated? Does it depend on the level of education that people in non Western countries think that the 'Western model of an encyclopedia' has shortcomings? The world of science is largely based on the Western way, too, and does not appeal to every culture to the same degree. It does not necessarily mean that the scientific world needs to be reformed. This also applies to Wikipedia.

It would be best for Wikipedia to organize a symposium with historian and philosopher en:Frank Ankersmit and likeminded experts about Wikipedia and Fake News. The subject is important and we have not understood the danger of POV leaking in quickly. The radical ban of Daily Mail as a source is an indication where to go. I think it's better to first understand what it's all about before taking measures.

I think it is wiser to focus on what we want to achieve than on what we want to counteract. Right now Fake News is a hot item, but in a year the hot item maybe will be war propaganda or a lack of journalistic capacity. Our focus must be on collecting, bundling, editing and disseminating quality knowledge. That may help in counteracting Fake News. But this is a broader them, which suits us better imho.

No, that is as if we look away and think that the problem does not exist anymore. It must become clear to many people what this is precisely about, and what can get Wikipedia into trouble (or, it already is in trouble). It is so important that we should find measures to tackle this kind of things. Certainly as fake news is a hot item nowadays.

In general: on Wikipedia, we can counteract misinformation the best by making the indication of sources mandatory, with regard to everything that can be doubted. Nowadays it is not mandatory on Dutch Wikipedia, and you notice that. We should also stop translating Wikipedia articles haphazardly from other language versions. Instead, we'd better concentrate on articles with information collected by ourselves. And don't use other wiki's (other than Wikipedia) as source. A site such as Wikinews should be deleted. We should concentrate on the updating, improving and expanding of existing articles about topics that are in the news. There should also be more attention by itself for the improvement and expansion of articles. The focus seems to be nowadys at writing new articles. There is a lot of wrong information in the Wikipedia language versions, meaning misinformation, although that is often a different kind of misinformation than in the question of the challenge.

A recent example of what might be Fake News: a famous mosque in Mosul was destroyed. Immediately it was mentioned that the IS was involved. And in a very short time later we could read on the Dutch Wikipedia that the IS had destroyed the mosque. We must take care of these kind of things. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Anything can only be accepted into Wikipedia when it is confirmed by official and/or independent sources. We have to be extremely careful with information coming from war situations.

Users that have been caught publishing Fake News inside Wikipedia should be blocked for a minimum of 1 week at once. As it is right now, they are usually banned for just 24 hours - and only for repeating this behavior.

Deliberately spreading Fake News is especially bad. We must somehow help to signal Fake News, so that it does not come to Wikipedia. This discussion about what we can do about it is very usefull. What is wrong as well is making jokes for the sake of making a joke, which we must also avoid - and that is why sources are so important, see en:Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia.

If you have detailed notes in addition to the summary, you may add them here. For example, the notes may come from an in-person discussion or workshop. If your discussion happened on a wiki or other online space, you do not need to copy the detailed notes here.